faf_init

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate non-readonly (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds that it creates a file and can overwrite with force, but does not disclose behavior when project.faf already exists without force (e.g., error or skip). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very concise single sentence plus examples. Front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), description covers creation and path behavior adequately. Missing return value description, but for a file-creation tool this is less critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value beyond schema by explaining 'smart resolution' for path parameter and providing examples, which clarifies usage. Force parameter is straightforwardly described in schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states 'Create project.faf' which is a specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it initializes a project file for AI readability, which is unique among the faf tool suite.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides example paths and explains path resolution and default behavior (current directory). However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, though the tool's purpose is narrow enough that this is not critical.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.